Talk:Corpse
I've created another page for Slang & Terminology called Exploit corpse. I found the original link to the non-existent exploit page in the minion article. After writing it, I linked all the necromancer corpse spells to my new page. In doing so, i found a corpse page. I don't think the old page is as complete and I felt the word "exploit" needed more explanation that the word "corpse," so I left my changes. In my opinion, we could delete this corpse page, as it doesn't really add anything extra. Other opinions are welcome, however. (By the way, I used "exploit corpse" instead of just "exploit" in order to avoid confusion with the more standard "game exploit" or cheat.) --Squeg 05:42, 11 Oct 2005 (EST) :The article as it exists now alleviates my concerns about redundancy adds benefit to the "slang and terminology list. Thanks. --Squeg 10:21, 11 Oct 2005 (EST) :I was thinking that everything in Corpse Exploitation should be merged into this article. Links could point directly at Corpse#Exploiting_Corpses where applicable (once that section is made). --Rezyk 13:39, 15 Oct 2005 (EST) ::I believe the definition of a corpse goes beyond exploitation. Corpse can be mentioned in Skill capping and resurrection as well. I think Corpse and Exploit (Corpse) are two different articles. ::Now, for exploitation, in general, verbs are our main terminology index. i.e. The article Corpse Exploitation is best created under Exploit (Corpse) and everything moved there. --Karlos 14:45, 15 Oct 2005 (EST) There is no need for this article. All relevant information exists under each individual topic and is only alluded to here. This is not a glossary article, it is a dictionary definition article. —Tanaric 07:39, 15 October 2006 (CDT) :I think we should move the contents of Corpse Exploitation here and add a list of corpse-related skills like we do for Enchantment, Hex, Condition and the articles for individual conditions. The fact that some monsters leave invisible corpses is relevant and non-intuitive. -- Gordon Ecker 04:56, 16 October 2006 (CDT) ::I disagree. Corpse is the basic term, and it must stay. If anything, corpse exploitation should be turned into a redirect to corpse, not the other way round! -- 04:10, 18 October 2006 (CDT) :::Ok, my opinion is stated above, if anyone bothered to read it. But anyhow, I RV'ed Skuld's redirect because frankly it was pretty trigger happy. Tanaric is discussing it here, the two people who answered both think it should stay and he up and moved it. I too diagree with deletion or redirecting. If anything, corpse exploitation should be here, plus other info (like corpses of bosses and so forth). --Karlos 06:37, 18 October 2006 (CDT) ::::Agreed - there's a difference between a corpse, exploting a corpse and skills that need a corpse. Leave it as it is, it's fine. --NieA7 06:39, 18 October 2006 (CDT) :::::Okay. I removed the delete tag. I disagree with moving corpse exploitation here. Corpse exploitation is very clear what it's about -- the exploitation of corpses. This article isn't really about corpses, per say -- it's also about corpse exploitation. That leads me to believe that corpse exploitation is the correct article title (though I wouldn't mind seeing it moved to exploit (corpse), to be more in line with other ambiguous article titles). :::::If consensus is against me, I'm fine with that, but I would like to see one or the other redirect somewhere. It seems pretty user-unfriendly to have an article which simply summarizes another article. —Tanaric 07:27, 18 October 2006 (CDT) ::::::I'm fine with merging the two articles, as there isn't too much content in them yet, but they should definetly be merged as the more basic term, which is clearly corpse. Merging them under corpse exploitation would be like moving all the content of Skill to Skill Monitor. ;) -- 08:17, 18 October 2006 (CDT) :::::::I'll look into doing a bit of a rewrite. It's not articulated well, I agree. I'll put my black-and-white vision to it. :P --Karlos 08:19, 18 October 2006 (CDT) ::::::::Maybe I'll add some shades of grey when you're done. :p Or some color, even! :D -- 08:40, 18 October 2006 (CDT) It would be nice to have a comprehensive list of monsters that leave exploitable corpses. Same for a comprehensive list of monsters that are affected by poison and bleeding (I assume most creatures except spirits are affected by burning). :The (currontly incomplete) list in the fleshy creature article lists every known non-fleshy creature (since it's a smaller list than fleshy creatures). So far, every fleshy creature appears to be vulnerable to bleeding, disease and poison and leaves an exploitable corpse, and every non-fleshy creature appears to be immune to all three and is not known to leave an exploitable corpse. -- Gordon Ecker 01:17, 13 December 2006 (CST)